Joe Rogan says will vote for Bernie, people mad.

[Seanchaidh]

Meanwhile, the "safe bet": [tweet t="https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1221212931205029888"]

They would like to see more of this Bernie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vabeos-F8Kk

I would also love to see more of that Bernie, so long as he's directing it at worthy targets.

 

[Silvanus]

You can criticize him too of course, you just can't criticize him from the angle of him being a right-winger or alt-right or what have you ever since he endorses literally the most left-wing person that is currently running. You don't get to instantly define as right wing or alt right an opinion about transgender athletes that differs to yours. Words mean things.

Uhrm, right, I'm following so far... it's illogical to sum up somebody's entire platform as "right" or "left" based on a single issue, when their platform is broadly different. Ok.

Someone who is willing to vote for Bernie, by definition, is a left winger, so whatever views they have on transgender people are de-facto left wing views about them.

That's just absolutely ridiculous. A specific stance on a specific issue becomes a "left wing" one because one left-wing person holds it? That's utterly, utterly untenable.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

You can criticize him too of course, you just can't criticize him from the angle of him being a right-winger or alt-right or what have you ever since he endorses literally the most left-wing person that is currently running. You don't get to instantly define as right wing or alt right an opinion about transgender athletes that differs to yours. Words mean things.

Uhrm, right, I'm following so far... it's illogical to sum up somebody's entire platform as "right" or "left" based on a single issue, when their platform is broadly different. Ok.

Someone who is willing to vote for Bernie, by definition, is a left winger, so whatever views they have on transgender people are de-facto left wing views about them.

That's just absolutely ridiculous. A specific stance on a specific issue becomes a "left wing" one because one left-wing person holds it? That's utterly, utterly untenable.

Any issue is just an issue. The issue doesn't know if it's left or right. People who hold a view have to weigh it in their hearts and figure out how important it is to them. Some of the views we hold are things we are agreeing dispassionately about because it's the path of least resistance in the absence of strong feelings, some things are our foundational values that determine whether we decide to feel like we belong to a side or not. Neither issue itself is any more important though, it's all about how one feels about the issue that matters. There's an illusion of importance when you have a lot of people agreeing an issue is important (like Evangelicas and abortions for example) but that's still just a political bubble with a lot of clout.


Now, you can say someone who supports a centrist may have some right wing and some left wing opinions and hence supports the centrist. That's at least an interesting discussion. When you have someone supporting literally the most left wing candidate though, your case for calling their views right wing or alt right is critically weaker. So my stance is actually a lot more tenable than you give it credit for, cause the nuance is the speaker being a supporter of the furthest left of the left wing. There's much less room for ambiguity than you give credit for.


What is happening here is that some people's path of least resistance stances are about issues that are others' foundational ones, so when someone isn't all up in arms about people's pet issue, those people presume to tell them that they're not left wing because they have different values and priorities, and nobody should get to do that. Notice, I may call one a cultist authoritarian but I'm not calling them a right winger or a marxist. I'm not trying to kick them out. I'm just trying to get them to shut the hell up so they won't scare off normal people who don't have enough time to do their research on Bernie's economical policies lol.

 

[Silvanus]

Any issue is just an issue. The issue doesn't know if it's left or right. People who hold a view have to weigh it in their hearts and figure out how important it is to them. Some of the views we hold are things we are agreeing dispassionately about because it's the path of least resistance in the absence of strong feelings, some things are our foundational values that determine whether we decide to feel like we belong to a side or not. Neither issue itself is any more important though, it's all about how one feels about the issue that matters. There's an illusion of importance when you have a lot of people agreeing an issue is important (like Evangelicas and abortions for example) but that's still just a political bubble with a lot of clout.

Yes, I'm aware that issues are given import by how we feel about them, that's obvious. I don't see what it has to do with this.

Now, you can say someone who supports a centrist may have some right wing and some left wing opinions and hence supports the centrist. That's at least an interesting discussion. When you have someone supporting literally the most left wing candidate though, your case for calling their views right wing or alt right is critically weaker. So my stance is actually a lot more tenable than you give it credit for, cause the nuance is the speaker being a supporter of the furthest left of the left wing. There's much less room for ambiguity than you give credit for.

I'm not calling their entire platform right-wing. In fact, nobody here has done so.

What I said was that supporting a left-wing candidate doesn't somehow transform every position they hold into a left-wing one. How would that work in the slightest? If a right-wing person and a left-wing person both hold the same position on one particular issue, is their stance both right-wing and left-wing simultaneously?

What is happening here is that some people's path of least resistance stances are about issues that are others' foundational ones, so when someone isn't all up in arms about people's pet issue, those people presume to tell them that they're not left wing because they have different values and priorities, and nobody should get to do that. Notice, I may call one a cultist authoritarian but I'm not calling them a right winger or a marxist. I'm not trying to kick them out. I'm just trying to get them to shut the hell up so they won't scare off normal people who don't have enough time to do their research on Bernie's economical policies lol.

No, wait, you've shifted what you're talking about here. This paragraph talks about telling the person that they're not left-wing; before, you said that the view was a left-wing one because the person holding that view was supporting a left-wing candidate.

That's an immense difference.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Any issue is just an issue. The issue doesn't know if it's left or right. People who hold a view have to weigh it in their hearts and figure out how important it is to them. Some of the views we hold are things we are agreeing dispassionately about because it's the path of least resistance in the absence of strong feelings, some things are our foundational values that determine whether we decide to feel like we belong to a side or not. Neither issue itself is any more important though, it's all about how one feels about the issue that matters. There's an illusion of importance when you have a lot of people agreeing an issue is important (like Evangelicas and abortions for example) but that's still just a political bubble with a lot of clout.

Yes, I'm aware that issues are given import by how we feel about them, that's obvious. I don't see what it has to do with this.

Now, you can say someone who supports a centrist may have some right wing and some left wing opinions and hence supports the centrist. That's at least an interesting discussion. When you have someone supporting literally the most left wing candidate though, your case for calling their views right wing or alt right is critically weaker. So my stance is actually a lot more tenable than you give it credit for, cause the nuance is the speaker being a supporter of the furthest left of the left wing. There's much less room for ambiguity than you give credit for.

I'm not calling their entire platform right-wing. In fact, nobody here has done so.

What I said was that supporting a left-wing candidate doesn't somehow transform every position they hold into a left-wing one. How would that work in the slightest? If a right-wing person and a left-wing person both hold the same position on one particular issue, is their stance both right-wing and left-wing simultaneously?

Yes?

I don't see the contradiction. There's tons of stances that both sides agree on such as murder being bad and theft being bad and a million other things. Some positions are bipartisan like that.

No, wait, you've shifted what you're talking about here. This paragraph talks about telling the person that they're not left-wing; before, you said that the view was a left-wing one because the person holding that view was supporting a left-wing candidate.

That's an immense difference.

If the views you deem to be foundational to you are left wing, you will go on to see yourself as being left wing. Even if your other views are not as popular with other people of the left, even if they are popular with people of the right, what matters is what your foundational view that you define yourself by is.

The issue is that people fail to discern "their" foundational views as being "just theirs" and confuse them as being "the" foundational views. Views that anyone who identifies to be left wing is passionate about.

My approach is one of actually bringing people together, since it combines people who may potentially disagree in a whole array of issues, simply because they really strongly agree on a couple of important ones. I think that's how democracy is supposed work. It shouldn't be a cult you join, it should be a convenient path you take to better your life.

 

[Agema]

If you want to win the popular vote, some of the people you need to win over have beliefs different, and even objectionable, to your own. I do find some on the left seem to be falling into a trap of demanding ideological purity ahead of winning elections.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes?

I don't see the contradiction. There's tons of stances that both sides agree on such as murder being bad and theft being bad and a million other things. Some positions are bipartisan like that.

...Do you genuinely fail to see the difference between something being so universally agreed-upon that attributing it to either political wing would be absurd (like those examples), and specifically attributing it to both political wings simultaneously?

If the views you deem to be foundational to you are left wing, you will go on to see yourself as being left wing. Even if your other views are not as popular with other people of the left, even if they are popular with people of the right, what matters is what your foundational view that you define yourself by is.

This is completely beside the point you made before. You implied that a non-foundational view held by a left-wing person is automatically a left-wing stance, by benefit of it being held by that person. As if a person being left-wing in most respects somehow makes all their views on every subject left-wing.

Left-wing person prefers marmite to honey? Left-wing.

My approach is one of actually bringing people together, since it combines people who may potentially disagree in a whole array of issues, simply because they really strongly agree on a couple of important ones. I think that's how democracy is supposed work. It shouldn't be a cult you join, it should be a convenient path you take to better your life.

Seems to me that labelling every aspect of somebody's platform left-wing or right-wing just because of their general foundational beliefs is actually pretty damn divisive.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Apparently there is more to this absolute scandal that should consume all our attention:

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/IHateNYT/status/1221673847231057921"]

Joe Rogan is... cleaning up his social media account(s)!

 

[Trunkage]

Ah, found the one I was looking for:

Here Rogan talks more about his political beliefs than I see in most of his podcasts. It's front loaded, so more in the first 30 mins. I'd like to note that his tone changes here compared to a Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro. I remember there were plenty of Rogan doing 'gotchas' against things he doesn't like (eg. understanding the transsexual situation). Here he does talk about not understanding people being against certain policies the left pursue.

My approach is one of actually bringing people together, since it combines people who may potentially disagree in a whole array of issues, simply because they really strongly agree on a couple of important ones. I think that's how democracy is supposed work. It shouldn't be a cult you join, it should be a convenient path you take to better your life.

Seems to me that labelling every aspect of somebody's platform left-wing or right-wing just because of their general foundational beliefs is actually pretty damn divisive.

One thing I've noticed over the last few decades is, particularly when used by right winger, divisive is a word used to point out that the Left is wrong. I am also very wary of ANYONE, on both sides, who says, 'bringing people together' because that bringing usually involves deleting any potential disagreement through vilifying people. If you can do it while not hurting people, Dreiko, more power to you. I've heard that phrase too much and be utterly harmful to people, I don't trust that phrase.

Apparently there is more to this absolute scandal that should consume all our attention:

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/IHateNYT/status/1221673847231057921"]

Joe Rogan is... cleaning up his social media account(s)!

Over the last couple of years, he's been retracting a lot on conspiracy theories that he once believed.

 

[CaitSeith]

As fair as I have seen, the argument from the left to be mad at Rogan is that he supported the 2014 movement that shalt not be mentioned in this forum, and he hasn't taken that back.

People also need to stop taking Joe Rogan seriously.

I'm all in for that plan; but Sanders isn't.

 

[Trunkage]

Hey all, Shapiro chimed in with his truth bombs (sorry, its on FB and I dont know how to embed those videos)
https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=1488653237955338&_rdr

No wonder there's so much cancelling going on. What's classed as cancelling is critising someone.

 

[Avnger]

Hey all, Shapiro chimed in with his truth bombs (sorry, its on FB and I dont know how to embed those videos)
https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=1488653237955338&_rdr

No wonder there's so much cancelling going on. What's classed as cancelling is critising someone.

Ah yes, the good old criticism = censorship narrative.

Apparently there is more to this absolute scandal that should consume all our attention:

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/IHateNYT/status/1221673847231057921"]

Joe Rogan is... cleaning up his social media account(s)!

There's a difference between "cleaning up your social media" to remove statements advocating incorrect beliefs you no longer support and "cleaning up your social media" to remove things that you still believe but want to hide due to criticism. I personally don't know or care which Rogan is doing, but to act like this is definitively something innocent is as stupid as acting like it's definitively something guilty without more information.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

One thing I've noticed over the last few decades is, particularly when used by right winger, divisive is a word used to point out that the Left is wrong. I am also very wary of ANYONE, on both sides, who says, 'bringing people together' because that bringing usually involves deleting any potential disagreement through vilifying people. If you can do it while not hurting people, Dreiko, more power to you. I've heard that phrase too much and be utterly harmful to people, I don't trust that phrase.

You seem to be thinking of the type of "bipartisan" behavior Biden is proud of, in which bringing people together means bringing the center to the right and agreeing with the right wing. I'm talking about bringing actual people together, and most normal people from both sides don't really care about these social issues a fraction as deeply as they care about economics.

Lets take a super divisive issue like abortion for example. Abortion ban laws mainly affect poor people who can't travel to get an abortion to a location it's legal and have to either have a kid they can't care for properly or do risky procedures at home.

There's two ways to fix this. You can either ban abortion and anger a good chunk of the country who still believes in fairy tales from eons ago, or, you can improve the economic situation so there's way less poor people who can't afford to travel for an abortion.

Both achieve roughly the same goal but one brings people together while the other divides them. Also, note, being for the latter path is not a stance against abortion, it's a stance for winning elections that is merely indifferent towards abortion. People fail to comprehend this sort of nuance way too often. They tend to value being for abortion as something of intrinsic value in and of itself, divorced from the actual benefits such a stance may (or may not) bring to people's lives.

 

[Silvanus]

Lets take a super divisive issue like abortion for example. Abortion ban laws mainly affect poor people who can't travel to get an abortion to a location it's legal and have to either have a kid they can't care for properly or do risky procedures at home.

There's two ways to fix this. You can either ban abortion and anger a good chunk of the country who still believes in fairy tales from eons ago, or, you can improve the economic situation so there's way less poor people who can't afford to travel for an abortion.

Both achieve roughly the same goal but one brings people together while the other divides them. Also, note, being for the latter path is not a stance against abortion, it's a stance for winning elections that is merely indifferent towards abortion.

Simply focusing on alleviating poverty without actually directly addressing access to abortion will take ten times as long, and will still leave some without access- still the absolute poorest.

No, you cannot address every vital social question with broad wellbeing measures.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Lets take a super divisive issue like abortion for example. Abortion ban laws mainly affect poor people who can't travel to get an abortion to a location it's legal and have to either have a kid they can't care for properly or do risky procedures at home.

There's two ways to fix this. You can either ban abortion and anger a good chunk of the country who still believes in fairy tales from eons ago, or, you can improve the economic situation so there's way less poor people who can't afford to travel for an abortion.

Both achieve roughly the same goal but one brings people together while the other divides them. Also, note, being for the latter path is not a stance against abortion, it's a stance for winning elections that is merely indifferent towards abortion.

Simply focusing on alleviating poverty without actually directly addressing access to abortion will take ten times as long, and will still leave some without access- still the absolute poorest.

No, you cannot address every vital social question with broad wellbeing measures.

That's true, but at the cost of not addressing this one particular issue we're laser focused on as well (but still pretty well) you also get the benefit of all the other myriads of benefits that lifting people out of poverty provides for one's life so it's still way way more total good overall. It's just general good and not particular to any one group of race or sex-delineated individuals. If people have class consciousness, however, it will indeed become easily comprehensible just how much better such an approach will be.

 

[Silvanus]

That's true, but at the cost of not addressing this one particular issue we're laser focused on as well (but still pretty well) you also get the benefit of all the other myriads of benefits that lifting people out of poverty provides for one's life so it's still way way more total good overall. It's just general good and not particular to any one group of race or sex-delineated individuals. If people have class consciousness, however, it will indeed become easily comprehensible just how much better such an approach will be.

Right, that's why we should alleviate poverty. But it's not an either-or; we can't use that as a replacement for directly addressing specific issues. The result would be... that those issues just largely don't get addressed.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

That's true, but at the cost of not addressing this one particular issue we're laser focused on as well (but still pretty well) you also get the benefit of all the other myriads of benefits that lifting people out of poverty provides for one's life so it's still way way more total good overall. It's just general good and not particular to any one group of race or sex-delineated individuals. If people have class consciousness, however, it will indeed become easily comprehensible just how much better such an approach will be.

Right, that's why we should alleviate poverty. But it's not an either-or; we can't use that as a replacement for directly addressing specific issues. The result would be... that those issues just largely don't get addressed.

When you have a gushing bullet wound and a paper cut in the same tissue that the bullet went through, you both want to address the bullet wound first and by addressing it first you'll end up fixing the paper cut too. All that really changes is that you can't market yourself as being for fixing the paper cut, and if there's a lot of cultists that focus on paper cuts to the exclusion of all other injuries, you will see people promoting focusing on the paper cut even if in doing so you alienate every other normal person who is sitting there confused about why you're not fixing the bullet wound and why you spend precious time debating what sort of bow to tie your stitches and if pink or blue string is more appropriate, whereas if you focus on the bullet wound, sure, you may be left with an ugly paper cut scar, but at least you'll survive in the long run.

The situation where you have time and energy enough to address both things is not one that's among the available ones, either you address the bullet wound or the village will go to the shaman down the street who will promise them fantastical remedies that only work if we sacrifice the witch/demon/jew/etc. and we already did that mistake in 2016.

 

[Silvanus]

When you have a gushing bullet wound and a paper cut in the same tissue that the bullet went through, you both want to address the bullet wound first and by addressing it first you'll end up fixing the paper cut too.

No, sorry, that analogy is so ridiculously simplistic its unworkable. The doctor prioritises the imminent, most severe threat because they can literally only address one thing at a time.

There is no reason whatsoever that efforts to alleviate poverty must take the place of any other efforts. They do not cover exactly the same areas; they do not require the same resources.

The patient has two distinct injuries, with some (incomplete and complex) overlap. Your argument amounts to directing the doctor to ignore one and focus exclusively on the other, even though the doctor has the ability to treat both at the same time.

All that really changes is that you can't market yourself as being for fixing the paper cut, and if there's a lot of cultists that focus on paper cuts to the exclusion of all other injuries

"To the exclusion of all other injuries"? What's that absurd addition doing in there? You're the only one arguing that one issue shouldn't be directly addressed.

...in fact, most of the next paragraph here is a ridiculous extension of that strawman: as if addressing access to abortion somehow prevents society from addressing poverty. It's just a ludicrous false binary.

Women's charities and those who actually do outreach are pretty unanimous that unequal access to abortion entrenches poverty, by the way.

 

[Seanchaidh]

There's a difference between "cleaning up your social media" to remove statements advocating incorrect beliefs you no longer support and "cleaning up your social media" to remove things that you still believe but want to hide due to criticism. I personally don't know or care which Rogan is doing, but to act like this is definitively something innocent is as stupid as acting like it's definitively something guilty without more information.

Whether "innocent" or "guilty", it's good regardless.

 

[Trunkage]

One thing I've noticed over the last few decades is, particularly when used by right winger, divisive is a word used to point out that the Left is wrong. I am also very wary of ANYONE, on both sides, who says, 'bringing people together' because that bringing usually involves deleting any potential disagreement through vilifying people. If you can do it while not hurting people, Dreiko, more power to you. I've heard that phrase too much and be utterly harmful to people, I don't trust that phrase.

You seem to be thinking of the type of "bipartisan" behavior Biden is proud of, in which bringing people together means bringing the center to the right and agreeing with the right wing. I'm talking about bringing actual people together, and most normal people from both sides don't really care about these social issues a fraction as deeply as they care about economics.

Lets take a super divisive issue like abortion for example. Abortion ban laws mainly affect poor people who can't travel to get an abortion to a location it's legal and have to either have a kid they can't care for properly or do risky procedures at home.

There's two ways to fix this. You can either ban abortion and anger a good chunk of the country who still believes in fairy tales from eons ago, or, you can improve the economic situation so there's way less poor people who can't afford to travel for an abortion.

Both achieve roughly the same goal but one brings people together while the other divides them. Also, note, being for the latter path is not a stance against abortion, it's a stance for winning elections that is merely indifferent towards abortion. People fail to comprehend this sort of nuance way too often. They tend to value being for abortion as something of intrinsic value in and of itself, divorced from the actual benefits such a stance may (or may not) bring to people's lives.

Wait... you're solution to abortion is to step into a bigger divisive issue? Is there some part of your plan I'm missing?

Relieving poverty is way more divise than abortion. There are a very large crowd, way bigger than the anti-abortion crowd, that think ANY help, monetary or otherwise, hurts people. 'Pick yourself up by your bootstraps.' They have a whole party based around that idea

Also, you think TRAVELING will stop the anti-abortion crowd. Where is this magical land where people needing an abortion can go but anti-abortion people can't? Overseas? Do you have an anti-abortion force field? What makes you think that the anti-abortion crowd will just track down wherever this new clinic is?

How is this reconciling anything? You're just making the issue more expensive and shifting the problem somewhere else. You know, EXACTLY like I said. You're just reinforcing my opinions about 'bringing people together'

Here's what you could have said. Relieving poverty will reduce the need for abortion because the mother/parents can actually look after the kid. You'll still get pushback because of the bootstraps people. They've said that this just encourages more irresponsible behaviour.

For example, we had a scheme in my country called the Baby Bonus. You got $5k for having a baby. (Its a way to dilute all the immigrants in our country, gotta prop up the number of Australians we have.) Guess who had more babies? Low socioeconomic area. Guess what the parents bought? Cars, xboxes, new clothes for themselves.

The intention was that all classes would be incentivized to have kids. But $5k doesn't make a middle class person change their plans. It certainly doesn't change a rich person's mind.